handbook of archaeoastronomy and ethnoastronomy || neolithic longhouses and bronze age houses in...

Neolithic Longhouses and Bronze AgeHouses in Central Europe 112Emılia Pasztor and Judit P. Barna

Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1308

Orientation and Archaeology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1309

Case Study: Prevailing Wind or Midwinter Sun? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1312

Northern or Eastern Orientation? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1313

Case Study: Bronze Age Settlement of the Tumulus Cultural Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1313

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1314

Cross-References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1315

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1315

Abstract

The investigation of the cause and guiding principles of the orientation of houses

has been a neglected field in archaeological studies. If clear regularity can be

observed in the location of houses and constructions, it is assumed to follow the

prevailing winds in most cases.

The position of a house is influenced by environmental and non-environmental

factors. Besides the winds, sunlight, heat, etc., it is argued in anthropology that

there is no phase in building traditional houses in which the position is not

connected to a rite. Careful investigation of the orientation can reveal some

attitude of prehistoric peoples to their natural surroundings that involve not only

the terrestrial but also the celestial “landscape” as an inseparable unity.

E. Pasztor (*)

Magistratum Studio, Dunafoldvar, Hungary

e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

J.P. Barna

Balatoni Museum, Keszthely, Hungary

e-mail: [email protected]

C.L.N. Ruggles (ed.), Handbook of Archaeoastronomy and Ethnoastronomy,DOI 10.1007/978-1-4614-6141-8_126,# Springer Science+Business Media New York 201

1307

5

mailto:[email protected]



Introduction

The orientation of houses has not stirred up serious interest among archaeologists.

If the regularity is a striking feature, they consider its cause to be the prevailing

wind. There are however exceptions. The analysis of the alignments of British and

Irish Neolithic houses denotes the followings causes (Topping 1996):

1. Pointing into the wind to give greater structural stability against the prevailing

air flow

2. Solar radiation – direct absorption of the heat by aligning the axes roughly with

east–west, to get the largest possibly roof area to face the longest period of the

sun’s path in the sky

3. Light penetration in location and orientation of doorway.

Unusual alignments, changing doorways, pits with sacral deposits, and cultic

artifacts inside the houses, all may also indicate social and/or spiritual expectations.

The impact of this factor is observable, if there are houses of different orientations

in different periods at the same site, or if the orientation is altered in a settlement in

several layers. Did the prevailing wind change?

Ethnographical records attest the presence of non-environmental factors in

building houses or settlements. Basic functions of human existence are closely

attached to houses, which are totally or partly the subject of traditions and

beliefs. Creating analogies between the outer and inner world is characteristic

to traditional way of thinking. Omens coming from the transcendent world are

significant groups in a belief system concerning houses. There are few ethno-

graphical analogies to select the site and the orientation of houses in the

Carpathian Basin as in the last centuries, possession became stable, and there

were no free sites to occupy. A new house had to follow the already established

pattern (Bereznai 1999).

One of the exceptions is the old Csango (a Hungarian-speaking minority in

Moldova), whose belief in the significant role of the sun influenced their folk

architecture. Their villages were situated in valleys, which extended from the east

to the west, e.g., Magyarfalu, Labnik, Pokolpatak, Klezse. The paths leading

through the villages were heading from “napjovet” – the course of the rising

sun – to “napszent€uletre” – toward where the sun goes to sleep (they are old

Hungarian expressions). The orientation of the openings of the houses, to allow

the sun to shine into them, was also important. Southward positions were generally

favored with orientation, i.e., when the facade faced south (Duma-Istvan 2005).

Anthropological records also report a double role of the houses. It was partly

a stage for everyday life and partly a shrine on special occasions. The profane space

transformed into a sacral one by ritual activities.

When analyzing the internal space, some researchers came to the conclusion that

the enclosed space as a microcosmos expressed its occupants’ beliefs about the

world they lived in. The orientations, the constructional elements, and the position-

ing of functional activities were all a visible embodiment of that cosmology

(Pearson and Richards 1994).

1308 E. Pasztor and J.P. Barna

The so-called balvanyos hazak (houses with idols) in the Hungarian region of

Nyırseg seem to support this argument. The main, trimmed oak pillars of the

houses, 270–280-cm high and often with a diameter of 50–60 cm, were dug with

their roots. They held the principal beams, the whole roof. The decorated prop,

which divided the facade, is a characteristic unit of the folk architecture of the

Tapio region in Hungary. There are often ancient cosmological signs among the

symbols of the decoration (Fig. 112.1, Pasztor 2009a).

Arguments on orientation by ethnographical analogies:

• The facade/the main entrance is relevant for the alignment.

• The order of outer directions is always altered inside. While outside the sun is the

reference, it is often a human body inside.

• There is always a sacral direction; however, the orientation of houses does not

follow it clearly.

• Traditions (almost) always take over the helm from the environmental factors;

principles of space organization are guided by beliefs.

• Directions are often joined by color symbolism.

Orientation and Archaeology

Mostly the alignments of Neolithic houses have been investigated. Marshall argues

by anthropological fieldwork performed in Papua New Guinea that the essential

cause for the main axes of Neolithic trapezoid long houses with their narrower ends

is the alignment to the prevailing wind (Marshall 1981).

Fig. 112.1 The house with

carved prop, Tapioszekcso

region, Hungary (Pasztor

2012, p. 1. abra)

112 Neolithic Longhouses and Bronze Age Houses in Central Europe 1309

In the case of the Neolithic Linear Pottery Culture in Central Europe, Coudart

made the point that house orientation was probably not chosen to minimize the

effects of the wind and adverse climatic conditions. There was certainly a link

between house orientation and the prevailing summer winds, but this does not apply

to all the areas occupied by Danubian groups (Coudar 1998).

Studying the Danubian long houses, Hodder also concludes that the topographicfactors could be of secondary consideration to certain communities, and the sym-

bolic or social influences were of greater importance as he points out a certain

correlation between the Central European longhouses and those of contemporary

tombs (Hodder 1990).

Bradley even argues that the buildings in Linear Pottery settlements were

generally orientated toward the areas of the origin of the communities, who lived

there (Bradley 2001).

In the Early Neolithic Period, groups can be classified for the orientations of

houses in Southeastern Europe. There are no significant orientation for them in

most tell settlements, where the territory occupied by the houses was more

important than the houses themselves. The relation of the clusters might be of

decision. There is also a group with strict North–south orientation that can be

attributed to the heritage of the surviving indigenous Mesolithic populations

(Banffy 2004).

In the Middle Neolithic Linear Pottery culture (LPC), north–south was a general

custom. The long pits along the walls indicate well this alignment (Marton and Oross

2009, Fig. 2-3, Pavuk 1994). The strict orientation is one of the most characteristic

elements of the LPC houses, which are assumed to be manifestations of a community

with a completely new identity (Banffy 2004).

While analyzing the orientation of the houses of the Middle/Late Neolithic site

Sormas-Torok-foldek, different principles can be detected. Preserving Middle

Neolithic traditions, the people of the Sopot culture oriented all the houses they

built toward the north–south, the most frequent value is 352� east of north. The

houses built by the Late Neolithic Lengyel community however seem to be aligned

according to a differing principle, the enclosure. The houses rather deviate in order

not to cross the circular, possible sacral boundary ditch, they rather follow it

(Fig. 112.2). The significance of the territory took over the government of the

houses. It might indicate the growing importance of the ideology that the circular

enclosures represent (Barna and Pasztor 2011). The same ideology seems to

influence on positioning the houses of the tell settlement of Polgar-Csoszhalom

(Raczky et al. 2005) and the settlement with two rondels in the site at Svodın,

Slovakia (Nemejcova-Pavukova 1995) as well.

The north–south orientation as a heritage, and a long tradition, had still a leading

role in the Bronze Age Carpathian Basin. It can be even recognized in tell

settlements. The houses arranged in triple groups at the site Tiszaug-Kemenyteto

were placed in a North–South direction with their axes. The strict geometrical order

of the decorations found on the outside walls supports the assumption about the

strong interweaving of the everyday life and the creation of a living-place with the

religious beliefs (Csanyi 2003).


Fig. 112.2 Orientation of houses at site Sormas – Torok-foldek (Barna and Pasztor 2011,

Fig. 12). 1: Orientation of the longer axis of the houses excavated in the site at Sormas-Torok-

foldek. 2: Rates of the diameters, the number of the roundels having the same rate and the rate

expressed in interreges. 3: Diameters of Enclosure No. II. in the site at Sormas-Torok-foldek

composing lanes running through gates No. 2 and 8. 4: Orientation of the longer axis of houses

representing the cardinal (cosmic) points


Analyzing the Late Bronze Age settlements in the Carpathian Basin, V. Szabo

establishes the fact that at present, there are no constructions, which could be

considered as a shrine or communal or chieftain’s building by their layout or finds.

The houses are thus assumed to be also places for sacral activities (V. Szabo 2004).

The investigation of Bronze Age houses of the Carpathian Basin (26 sites, 127

houses) indicates that:

• In most cases, the dispersion is quite low, which refers to intentional orientation,

apart from the target.

• There are sites, where alteration can be observed in the orientation, although the

settlements belongs to one cultural group.

• The north–south and the northwest-southeast are the most preferred directions. If

it is northwestern and southeastern, the value is around 140� of North.

Case Study: Prevailing Wind or Midwinter Sun?

A comparative analysis of the prevailing winds and the orientations attests that 17

of 35 investigated sites of the Carpathian Basin close to 50 % do not show

a correlation with the prevailing wind of the site (Pasztor 2012).

Investigation of an Early Bronze Age cultural group, the Bell Beaker–Csepel group:

Thirteen boat-shaped timber houses (Fig. 112.3) were unearthed at two sites. The

freestanding constructions were probably inhabited by extended families, making

Fig. 112.3 Reconstruction of a Bell Beaker boat-shaped house in the Archaeological Park,

Szazhalombatta (Pasztor 2005, Fig. 3)


home for 100–120 inhabitants. The orientations of the houses are almost parallel,

with a mean value of 141� East of North with a statistical dispersion as low as�10�.This direction is only 15� south of the sunrise at the winter solstice at the geo-

graphical latitude of the settlements. This direction is however the direction of the

prevailing wind as well.

The houses might have meant more than shelters from the adverse climatic condi-

tions for the residents. This assumption is supported by the ritual pits inside the houses.

The household rituals converted the profane space into a sacral one when it was

needed. No traces of hearths were found inside the houses, but remains of temporary

fireplaces were unearthed in pits in the southern part of the settlement section; thus,

smoke was not needed to be removed on a regular basis. During the time around the

winter solstice, the sun reached the altitude of 9.2� at the mean orientation of the houses

at about 9 a.m. This means that the sun then filled the houses with light through the

open gables (Endrodi and Pasztor 2006; Pasztor 2005, Fig. 112.3).

The entrance can take over the leading role from the facade in the belief system.

One of the best examples is given by the Iron Age settlement system in ancient Israel.

The main entrances of the buildings including not only the dwelling houses, but

public buildings in towns as well were generally aligned to the East. The high

preference in the investigated cases cannot be interpreted by either the climatic

conditions or functional expectations in the second phase of the Iron Age. Further

support comes from the ethnographical reports and from the Bible, where the Hebrew

word of east has a very positive meaning, while west has a negative one (Faust 2001).

Northern or Eastern Orientation?

Case Study: Bronze Age Settlement of the Tumulus Cultural Group

The Late Bronze Age settlement at Dunakeszi – Szekesdulo site, Hungary, exca-

vated by Gabor Szilas, includes about 60 houses. The longer axes of the houses

show a very good correlation with the north–south direction, which is not the most

favored for environmental factors. The statistical dispersion for the direction of the

main axes is 13.5�, which is not high. It signals that the possible goal for the

orientation might have been a celestial, but not a topographical one as in this latter

case, the parallaxes would be noticeable (Pasztor 2012).

The South is where the sun and any other celestial bodies reach the height of

their daily path, at the peak of “their power”. This direction is easy to stake out as

the sun shows it every day. The ethnographical records however prove how well

traditional people knew the motion of the sun; consequently, the statistical disper-

sion is too high for their practical knowledge.

The same correlation can be argued for the main entrances in connection with

the East as the main doorways, detected often as a two-swing door, were

generally found on the eastern side of the houses, close to their southern end.

The chart attests the rising sun may become more relevant as there is not a single

doorway, which did not face the rising sun, as the solstices are at 52-54 and


126-128 degrees in the Carpathian Basin (Fig. 112.4). The chart also indicates

that most houses were staked out around equinoxes. The ancient building technique

may also have applied props to the structures like in the Tapio region (see above).

Conclusion

The preference of north–south orientation was also a custom in the Carpathian

Basin for a long time.

Positioning the dwellings in north–south direction is not a favorable one regard-

ing the environmental conditions. As archaeological evidence attests, it might be

a long tradition going back as far as the Mesolithic period. It might be the visual

manifestation of a hunter-gatherer’s cosmology for which the south–north direction

was of significance, and which might have been generated by the migratory birds

(Pasztor 2009b).

Although the data may indicate a clear eastern or southern orientation, the

anthropological records can report very different reasons for a direction. Tradi-

tional Japanese houses faced the south, or rather their facade avoided the

north that had a negative meaning for them. The houses in the Indonesian

village named Toraja face the north where the rivers have their sources

(Pasztor 2009a).

The anthropological records indicate how complex causes of cultural

understanding can have an influence on positioning a house. The sun often has

50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105

N = 57

110 115 120 125 130 135

Fig. 112.4 The orientation of the main entrances of Tumulus culture houses excavated at the site

Dunakeszi-Szekesd€ulo, Hungary. x-axis: azimuth in degrees. (Pasztor 2012, 8. abra)


a double role. As an environmental factor, it gives light and heat to houses, and as

a non-environmental factor, it is often an essential element of the belief system.

Materializations of beliefs can however be different even inside one system.

Cross-References

▶Analyzing Orientations

▶Cultural Interpretation of Archaeological Evidence Relating to Astronomy

▶Cultural Interpretation of Ethnographic Evidence Relating to Astronomy

▶Neolithic Circular Ditch Systems (“Rondels”) in Central Europe

▶ Solar Alignments - Identification and Analysis

References

Banffy E (2004) The 6th millennium BC boundary in Western Transdanubia and its role in the

Central European transition (The Szentgyorgyvolgy-Pityerdomb settlement). Varia

Archaeologica Hungaria 15, Budapest

Barna JP, Pasztor E (2011) Different ways of using space: traces of domestic and ritual activities at

a Late Neolithic settlement at Sormas–Torok-foldek. Documenta Praehistorica 38: 185–206.

Bereznai ZS (1999) A hazepıtes hiedelem es szokaskorenek funkcionalis vizsgalata. Cumania

16:115–172

Bradley R (2001) Orientations and origin: a symbolic dimension to the long house in Neolithic

Europe. Antiquity 75:56–62

Csanyi M (2003) Bronzkori telep€ulesi goc a Tiszaugban. In: Visy ZS (ed) Magyar regeszet az

ezredfordulon. NKOM, Budapest, pp 143–144

Coudar A (1998) Architecture et societe neolithique L’unite et la variance de la maison

danubienne. Documents d’archeologie francaise 67, Maison Des Sciences de L’Homme, Paris

Duma-Istvan A (2005) Csango mitologia. Havas Kiado, Kezdivasarhely

Endrodi A, Pasztor E (2006) The role of symbolism and tradition in the society of Bell-Beaker

Csepel group. Archaeologiai Ertesıto 131:7–25

Faust A (2001) Doorway orientation, settlement planning and cosmology in ancient Israel during

Iron Age II. Oxf J Archaeol 20(2):129–157

Hodder I (1990) The domestication of Europe. Blackwell, Oxford

Marshall A (1981) Environmental adaptation and structural design in axially-pitched longhouses

from Neolithic Europe. World Archaeol 13(1):101–121

Marton T, Oross K (2009) Reconstructing space in a Familiar World. In: Kozłowski J (ed)

Interactions Between Different Models of Neolithization North of the Central European

Agro-Ecological Barrier. Polska Akademia Umiejetnosci. Prace Komisji Prehistorii Karpat

PAU 5. Krakow, pp 51–73

Nemejcova-Pavukova V (1995) Svodın. Zwei Kreisgrabenanlagen der Lengyel-kultur. Katedra

Archeologie Filozofickej Fak, Bratislava

Pasztor E (2005) Sunshine in Bell Beaker’s houses: on the orientation of the houses of the Bell

Beaker – Csepel group. In: Zedda MP, Belmonte JA (eds) Lights and shadows in cultural

astronomy. Associazione Archaeofila Sarda, Isili, pp 116–124

Pasztor E (2009a) The connection between the terrestrial and celestial landscape during the Bronze

Age in the Carpathian Basin: orientation of houses. In: Dimitriadis G (ed) Landscape in mind:

dialogue on space between anthropology and archaeology. BAR International Series S2003,

Archaeopress, Oxford


http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6141-8_26

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6141-8_24

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6141-8_14

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6141-8_127

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6141-8_36

Pasztor E (2009b) Prehistoric cosmologies – a methodological framework for an attempt to

reconstruct Bronze Age cosmologic ideas in the Carpathian Basin. In: Rubino Martın JA,

Belmonte JA, Prada F, Alberdi A (eds) Cosmology across cultures. ASP conference series,

vol 409. Astronomical Society of the Pacific, pp 457–463

Pasztor E (2013) Bronzkori hazak tajolasa a Karpat-medenceben (Orientation of Bronze Age

houses in the Carpathian Basin, English summary). Osregeszeti Levelek 13:13–25

Pavuk J (1994) Sturovo. Ein Siedlungplatz der Kultur mit Linearkeramik und der Zeliezovce-

Gruppe. Nitra

Pearson MP, Richards C (1994) Ordering the World: perceptions of architecture, space and time.

In: Pearson MP, Richards C (eds) Architecture and order. Routledge, London/New York,

pp 1–38

Raczky P, Anders A, Hajdu Zs, Nagy E Gy (2005) Zwischen Himmel und Erde – Polgar –

Csoszhalom, eine Siedlung in Ostungarn. In: Daim – Neubauer (eds) Zeitreise Heldenberg.

Geheimnisvolle Kreigr€aben. Niederosterreichische Landesaustellung, pp 203–209

V. Szabo G (2004) Haz, telep€ules es telep€ulesszerkezet a keso bronzkori (BD, HA, HB periodus)

Tisza-videken. MOMOSZ II:137–171

Topping P (1996) Structure and ritual in the Neolithic house: some example from Britain and

Ireland. In: Darvill T, Thomas J (eds) Neolithic houses in Northwest Europe and beyond.

Oxbow monograph 57. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp 157–170
